16th Century Japanese Samurai Military against European / Ottoman Contemporaries

[Lord Oda Nobunaga]

Interesting. I have heard of the Hapsburgs actually using volley fire techniques in the Long War. Also the Dutch under Maurice of Nassau seems to be the most cited example.

Above I said that the O Ataka Bune capsized in battle when it was being boarded. My only source for this is Stephen Turnbull. Despite the fact that it seems to contradict the account in the Shinchokoki in which it states that the fire from Kuki Yoshitaka's ships was enough to force Murakami Takayoshi to retreat.

[+Marius+]

Hello there concerning about Volley Fire, the Janissaries used Volley fire techniques as early as 1520s, especially Battle of Mohac and in 1605 became the first European army to evolve their fire technique with rotating firing barrage.

"And in the middle of the field, the Janissary regiments stood inthree ranks, each musketeer with matches ready [to fire], and they lined
up the big cannons chained in front of the Janissaries. Then, after the
first rank of the Janissaries fires their muskets, the second rank fires,
too. Afterwards, the rank that fired first bends double and begins to reload
their muskets. And as the third rank fires, the second rank in front
[of them] bends and prepares their muskets. Then, the first rank again
stands up and fires their muskets"

Edit: This thread page is really interesting!

It is still not proven that the Ottomans used rotating volley fire at Mohac, it is currently the view that what happened there was improvised ranked fire.

Also, it is not clear who used volley fire first in Europe as there is plenty of implied sources from the 1590s that describe it in various ways all over the place, including the Habsburg army.

To that end, the sources from both sides heavily imply that it was the usage of field artillery that proved more important than musket volley fire;

"But the Ottomans were quick to notice these problems. After the Eger cam- paign, for instance, Hasan Kafi Akhisari, a Bosnian scholar, submitted to Sultan Meh-med III and his commanders a treatise on the political and military problems he hadrecently observed. According to Akhisari, one reason why the enemy prevailed over the Ottomans was that “they use[d] certain… new hand and field guns that our sol-diery fail[ed] to apply”. Having personally witnessedthe battle of Mez ő keresztes, Akhisari no doubt referred to the superior firepower of the Habsburg infantry units."

"Recent research confirms that although the Ottomans unexpectedly emerged victorious at Mezőkeresztes, the single major field-battle of the Long War, this and other military engagements between the Habsburgs and the Ottomans during the Long War did indeed expose some weaknesses of the latter, particularly within the infantry units. A statistical study by the Hungarian historian László Nagy reveals that 63 of the 83 engagements between the two rivals ended in Ottoman defeats, though most of these were small-scale skirmishes that did not uproot the Ottoman presence in Hungary."

"However, since the very first years of the War, the enlarged groups of Habsburg musketeers on the battlefield and their entrenched positions amid increased artillery fire posed a more serious challenge. Cafer Iyani, another Ottoman author who joined the Long War in its early stages, frequently mentions this new Habsburg threat."


"Another contemporary Ottoman chronicler, Mehmed bin Mehmed, similarlymentions that, at the engagements near Vác (Vaç) in 1597 and Kanizsa in 1599, the simultaneous fire of the Habsburg cannons and musketeers from their entrenched positions caused severe casualties among the Ottoman soldiers who were either attacking or pursuing the enemy."


A Contribution to the Military Revolution Debate_The Janissaries' Use of Volley Fire during the Long Ottoman-Habsburg War of 1593-1606 and the Problem of Origins, Günhan Börekçi


Another source is an interesting usage of heavily armored infantry equipped with multiple muskets each;

According to Iyani, at the battle of Sisak in June 1593, in which the Ottomans were badly defeated;

"the treacherous infidels also formed ranks in five places. When the fegveroş soldiers, each one with five or six muskets ready nearby and in front, and dressed in full steel armor, stood against and engaged with the soldiers of Islam, they delivered thunder-sounding fire. Between the two sides, there happened such a battle and killing... that it is beyond any stating and recording."

In that battle the Ottomans lost thousands on the field versus a few dozen to a hundred infantry casualties on the German-Croatian side.

In my opinion, volley fire was not nearly as important in the 16th century as some believe, simply because of the way battles were fought at the time.

A lot of the battle descriptions of the time describe pike block charges into formations, it is very possible that the very dynamic of the battlefield prevented volley fire from being feasible, as the musketeers had to evade the infantry and move around far more than in the later centuries.

In fact, they are often described as running alongside an infantry engagement in order to support their own or flank enemy pike formations;

The Commentaries of Sir Francis Vere (1606), chapter titled "Second Relieving of Rheinberg,";

"And so presently I can at push of pike with them (the Spanish).

Where, at the first encounter, my horse being slain under me with a blow of a pike, and falling on me so as I could not suddenly rise, I lay as betwixt both troops till our men had made the enemy give back; receiving a hurt in my leg, and divers thrusts with pikes through my garments. It was very hard-fought on both sides, till our shot(gunners), spreading themselves along the skirt of the wood, as I had before directed, flanked and sore galled the enemy: so that they could no longer endure, but were forced to give back: which they did without any great disorder, in troop. And, as they were hard followed by our men, they turned and made head manfully, which they did four several times till they broke."

The issue, in my opinion, is that the musketeers at the times simply were in no situation to calmly reload for minutes at the time while you had pike blocks sprinting around and smashing into formations;

"I began to cry out aloud: 'Gentlemen, it may be there are not many here who have ever been in a battle before, and therefore let me tell you that if we take our pikes by the hinder end and fight at the length of the pike, we shall be defeated; for the Germans are more dexterous at this kind of fight than we are. But you must take your pikes by the middle as the Swiss do and run headlong in force and penetrate into the midst of them, and you shall see how confounded they will be." - Blaise de Monluc


IMO, the Japanese would have far more problems with sprinting, armored, pike blocks than with European musketry.

Pikemen even into the early 17th century could be quite well shelled in plate armor;

"... cuiraces for their bodies of nimble and good mould, being high pike proof; large and well compact gordgetts for their neckes, fayre and close joyned taches, to arm to the mid-thigh; as for the pouldron or the vantbrace, they may be spared, because they are but cumbersome. All this armour is to be russet, sanguine, or blacke colour, than white or milled, for it will keeps the longer from rust." - Gervase Markham, Souldier's Accidence

"These shall have strong, straight, yet nimble pikes of Ash-wood, well headed Steele, and armed with plates downward from the head, at least foure foote, and the full size or length of every Pike shall be fifteene foote, beside his head." - Soldier's Accidence, Gervase Markham


That of course, and obviously light field artillery.

[sevenman2345]

It is still not proven that the Ottomans used rotating volley fire at Mohac, it is currently the view that what happened there was improvised ranked fire.

From my findings based on Gabor Agoston it had said they formed nine consecutive rows and fired them rows by rows in kneeling or standing stance, (Don't know if this is a proper rotating mechanism perhaps a different version of volley fire) but yeah just as you said improvised ranked fire, still better than none but whether this is volley fire or improvised it would still be a type or form of volley fire (Latter). Additionally according to the source it was the Janissaries firepower that decided the fate of Hungary forces at the battle of Mohacs not the Ottoman cannons, as Turkish Forces also rested their hopes to the elite corps.

Another addon source based on the Battle of Mohacs:
"It is clear that the Janissaries’ continuous and rapid hail of bullets was one ofmajor factors behind the outcome of the battle. Thus, Géza Perjés, one of the authorities
on the Battle of Mohács, is of the opinion that “The janissaries took the brunt of
the fight… decimating the ranks of the Hungarians with murderous volleys…. The
bulk of the Ottoman central army, including the janissaries, … had fired volleys at the
Hungarian soldiers…. This shooting, unlike the firing of the artillery, had not only
sound and fury, but impact as well: it caused havoc in the ranks of the Hungarians”
(Perjés 1989).70 Admittedly, the Janissary ranks successfully dispersed and/or destroyed
the Hungarian cavalry and infantry forces by rotating in ranks and hence sustaining
a remarkable barrage of fire."



Although in 1605 stills shows that the Janissaries had used a rotating volley fire, but what concerns me is that (hopefully if memory serves me better based on some source) in the front-lines some regiments or ortas from low to none their supplies dried out prevent them from performing musket drills. So In my pov 50/50 lucky regiments with abundant supples kept their rotating fire.

Also, it is not clear who used volley fire first in Europe as there is plenty of implied sources from the 1590s that describe it in various ways all over the place, including the Habsburg army.

Ah yes I heard that in 1590s the arising use of volley fire Netherlands as wells as the Dutch Army.
"I have discovered … a method of getting the musketeers and soldiers armed with arquebuses not only to keep firing very well but to do it effectively in battle order … in the following manner: as soon as the first rank has fired together, then by the drill [they have learned] they will march to the back. The second rank, either marching forward or standing still, [will next] fire together [and] then march to the back. After that, the third and following ranks will do the same. Thus before the last ranks have fired, the first will have reloaded."

Some revisionist say that the Japanese or the Ottoman Army had created the Volley Fire but for now can't find any other sources to back this up. Also there is a possibilty that the Hungarian Forces most likely the veterans army of Flanders who had served the Ottoman passed their Volley Fire knowledge in either 1601 or 1602-1603 thus leading up to 1605.

Highlighted this dialogue from the source subheading: The Problems of Origins.
"In the absence of detailed studies of Ottoman infantry firing techniques during
the Long War with respect to the new tactics used by the two imperial armies, as well
as studies of alternative patterns of diffusion of military innovations during this period,
it is hard to provide definitive answers to these questions. At first sight, there seem to
be three possible scenarios: (1) that the Habsburgs did in fact use volley fire sometime
before 1605, and the Ottomans directly mimicked their tactic; (2) that the Ottomans
invented and perfected volley fire themselves; and (3) finally, that some European
“renegades” revealed this new tactic to the Ottomans.61"

(I'll dig in for some extensive heavy breathing research later)

A lot of the battle descriptions of the time describe pike block charges into formations, it is very possible that the very dynamic of the battlefield prevented volley fire from being feasible, as the musketeers had to evade the infantry and move around far more than in the later centuries.

Well this shows volley fire still has flaws when encountering dedicated pike or swords infantry, I think rotating volley fire works from afar undisrupted and works best when engaging with other ranged musket infantry.

The issue, in my opinion, is that the musketeers at the times simply were in no situation to calmly reload for minutes at the time while you had pike blocks sprinting around and smashing into formations;

I also agree on this one, despite the fact that volley fire can smooth out reloading times it would still take a while to reload completely unless you wanna use those Japanese cartridges.

I wanted to point out some historians overlook the Ottoman miniatures especially the miniature from 1597 the usage of Volley Fire and documents by all means the Ottomans especially the Janissary Corps had use Volley fire possibly before 1600s.

(Later I'll post some context from the pdf)

[sevenman2345]

This Nobunaga seems an original and competent fellow, he might take the biscuits. I've heard Alvarez had a lot of strings attached...



I can't buy this, Ottomans may have had patchy forces but the Janissaries were a large formation of true elites, and the typical Spanish MO was to send no more than three ships full of men per empire they were going to annhilate. "Its halfway round the world? OK you can take an extra missionary then".[/LEFT]
[/CENTER]

In engagements particularly sieges the ottomans would send their cannon fodders (Irregulars) at first to wear down the infidels then sending in an organized regimental orta's to reinforce and intensify the battle, and finally the sultan and his elite corps goes last as special reserves. I find the Col. Tartleton "Morale? Almost certainly with Japan" debatable.

As for Janissaries Prowess:

Combat Effectiveness | Morale |
13-14th Century: Fresh Swag of professionals
15th Century: Still a reigning military combat and moral prowess
16: Still retains their effectiveness until by the late and end of 16th century, their prowess deteriorates one of the reasons in my opinion is: Ewww normal conscripts (get away) especially sons from the janissaries particularly those fathers serving the administration sector are corrupt (all about money money) + corruption in power.

I admit that, I prefer the devshrime or blood-tax recruitment as a means to get retain that potential recruitment legacy but damn by the close end of 16 century rapid emerging of fake janissaries and they look more like a religious order instead of military. (Don't get me wrong, blood tax is not nice but for the sake of Janissary effectiveness preservation).

[RollingWave]

Errr, generally no.

But the context is so different that it's really apples and orange here. The Japanese had really really efficient mobilization system but this was also a context of them being a generally densely populated island with totally continuous stretch of arable lands.

The reality is if you teleport Japan to say.. off the coast of Spain or something, they will learn and adapt and look more or less like a European army within a couple years, and the difference between the two sides are close enough that the Spanish won't be able to pull a Cortez on them.

Also, context is everything, Korea's weakness in the Imjin war was the result of intentional political designs in a situation where they assumed they were only going to deal with nomadic raids .